Support NeoGAF

[Imbarkus]

I've been a part of too many organizations that number in the area of two to three hundred people to believe anything at all from a random anonymous sample of a single digit count of ex-employees. So few people know what's really going on at all levels, rumor-mills are full of bullshit, I've seen it time and time again, particularly in creative projects.

Worse yet, this is a sample tainted by the bias of sampling employees motivated or willing to speak anonymously to the press about an ex-boss or co-worker.

We really don't want to live in a world where everyone does this about everybody they've ever worked with. This is Peeple level bullshit, even just the personal accounts, much less the accusation of actual wrongdoing that deserve factual proof to be published.

This information should be like medical information gleaned from unethical medical practices: forbidden and ignored. Yet it's probably Escapist's biggest moneymaker all month.

 

[Ogimachi]

To be clear on further allegations: None of our sources were Derek Smart and we did not get our information from Glassdoor. However, we do know that a couple sources did post on Glassdoor after talking to Lizzy.

What a joke. Is CIG seeking legal action? They should.

 

[Oblong Schlong]

But I thought The Escapist cared about ethics in games journalism?!?

 

[Silent Chief]

Also why would anyone think they would need to change what they say when writing it down in another location? If one describes A and B to someone why wouldn't they continue to use the same descriptions when talking to someone else at a later date or putting down their thoughts? Regardless if you believe things to be true or not I don't get the argument here that something is wrong because two things match up, especially if they're potentially from the same person.

5 reviews in the same week is very unusual. That's certainly not 5 people acting independently.

 

[Silent Chief]

Some of the discussions were over email, I could easily see someone cutting and pasting the email they sent to the reporter on glassdoor with a minimum amount of editing. I can also see the reporter cutting and pasting from the emails into the story with a minimum amount of editing.

I'm not commenting on the soundness of the story mind you; but the scenario where this could happen is very plausible I think.

Once, unlikely. 5 times? Not even if those 5 people are acting together. Everybody works differently and people who work for a company like this can type faster than they can talk. Believe me.

 

[Plaguefox]

.

 

[QaaQer]

Something ugly is at play here... Star Citizen development seems to be anything but smooth.

For backers? maybe not. For employees? maybe so.

From the outside, Roberts looks like he could be an amalgm of Brad Wardell and Jeff Bezos. A Bezardellian hybrid would be like working for Lucifier, but he would get results.

 

[QaaQer]

Stop repeating this tired analogy when what we're talking about is someone's ability to use the media to anonymously throw smoke bombs.

As has been mentioned before, the sources ARE NOT ANONOMOUS. The author, editor-in-cheif, and Escapist's legal council know the names.

 

[Fractal]

For backers? maybe not. For employees? maybe so.

From the outside, Roberts looks like he could be an amalgm of Brad Wardell and Jeff Bezos. A Bezardellian hybrid would be like working for Lucifier, but he would get results.

Yeah, but we must not forget in the end Lucifer didn't manage to get results... to my great disappointment. In fact, a disgruntled employee was his downfall... sort of...

Spoiler

Devil's Advocate

 

[MC Safety]

I remember John Keefer from such Web sites as Gamespy and Crispy gamer.

He's a good sort, although I think he actually believed his own hype at Crispy.

 

[Imbarkus]

As has been mentioned before, the sources ARE NOT ANONOMOUS. The author, editor-in-cheif, and Escapist's legal council know the names.

If you publish a story from a source and you do not publish the name of the source you are publishing information from an anonymous source.

The litmus test is not that some-fucking-body somewhere ("Trust me!") knows who the person is, it is that the source gets to use the media outlet to broadcast their information or viewpoint without the consequences of THE PUBLIC knowing who they are.

Maybe a person would legitimately want that protection because some industry is corrupt, like some theoretical Volkwagen whistle-blower fearing for industry reprisal for using the media to do the "right" thing.

Or maybe a person might unfairly want that protection for murkier reasons, with murkier accusations, and this backhanded tactic would logically earn them industry reprisal for using the media to do the wrong thing.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Tamanator]

If you publish a story from a source and you do not publish the name of the source you are publishing information from an anonymous source.

The litmus test is not that some-fucking-body somewhere ("Trust me!") knows who the person is, it is that the source gets to use the media outlet to broadcast their information or viewpoint without the consequences of THE PUBLIC knowing who they are.

Maybe a person would legitimately want that protection because some industry is corrupt, like some theoretical Volkwagen whistle-blower fearing for industry reprisal for using the media to do the "right" thing.

Or maybe a person might unfairly want that protection for murkier reasons, with murkier accusations, and this backhanded tactic would logically earn them industry reprisal for using the media to do the wrong thing.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Or maybe they want to protect their identities because they want to keep their jobs and their reputations? Not everyone is willing to go full out whistleblower and reveal their identities and cop the eventual fallout, yet some still want to ensure that what they think is the 'true' story gets out there. I guess it's the trade off of the public finding out about something, but not knowing who it is from, like you mentioned. I'd argue that is not inherently a bad thing.

 

[Imbarkus]

I dunno. Everybody's the Hero of their own Story. Nobody's ever at fault for being on the outs, not feeling accepted, taking a layoff, etc etc.

That's why whistle-blower status is best reserved for actual crimes--that coppers would blow whistles for--by messengers bearing some sort of proof. Not office politics and a bunch of other accusations, without proof, that get lent more weight almost entirely due to the anonymity.

 

[Alcool313]

I think no matter what the escapist may say, the whole story is fishy as hell.

1. The author has a pretty strong connection to Smart (just look at twitter), and we all know Smart's current career goal is to take down Star Citizen (just look at twitter).

2. The strong uptick in negative reviews in glassdoor, all in quick succession and all in Australia.

It is hard to assume that all of these sources are working independently (already mentioned), but I would think that all of these factors would make any organization take the article with a huge grain of salt. Especially considering how they were rushing to publish the story (in their own words).

 

[Raticus79]

Trying to look at it from an impartial point of view (I've backed quite a bit now), the whole thing is kind of a wash at this point. If we take Escapist's word for it and accept the sources as valid, we're still just getting the word of mostly ex-employees which is disputed by verified posts by current employees. There's bias in both cases and there isn't really any evidence to draw conclusions from.

If one of the ex-employees had gotten a recording of the alleged activity, for example, we'd have something concrete to talk about.

 

[Wereroku]

What a joke. Is CIG seeking legal action? They should.

They won't seek legal action. If they did discovery would crack open their books and allow everyone to look through them. The only way there would be a lawsuit is if the whole story was fabricated.

 

[LastOne2100]

Yeah, Escapist is still just digging a bigger and worse hole for themselves. Their vetting process doesn't seem anywhere near the minimum standard for vetting a source.

Plus, in writing an article like this, you should not be willing to publish without a response from the company you're throwing stones at...it's not like this "article" was time sensitive, and the story would be lost if they waited even a week. Judging by the dates on the Glassdoor posts, they waited almost a week already.

Irresponsible and embarrassing. There were two plays here. Apologize, take the article down, go visit the CIG offices and talk to current employees face to face who can be properly vetted. Or double down.

 

[sturgboski]

Yeah, but we must not forget in the end Lucifer didn't manage to get results... to my great disappointment. In fact, a disgruntled employee was his downfall... sort of...

Spoiler

Devil's Advocate

Well, to be precise, Lucifer was the first disgruntled employee.

 

[aliengmr]

What a joke. Is CIG seeking legal action? They should.

They should continue making Star Citizen.

Spoiler

Derek should probably do the same since his game is complete shit.

 

[GashPrex]

It fails to pass the straight face test that the exact quotes were in the story and on the website.

 

[Gokurakumaru]

It's funny to see GAF go all Gamergate on this.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

They won't seek legal action. If they did discovery would crack open their books and allow everyone to look through them. The only way there would be a lawsuit is if the whole story was fabricated.

Smart has been saying similar things for months with no actual proof, but they decided to just ignore him and just continue working on the game. If CiG decides not to sue over this, that doesn't mean it's automatically true.

 

[Wereroku]

Smart has been saying similar things for months with no actual proof, but they decided to just ignore him and just continue working on the game. If CiG decides not to sue over this, that doesn't mean it's automatically true.

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest they wouldn't sue because it was true more that they would have to reveal their finances in order to prove it was false and they probably don't want to do that. Also some of the hit piece might be true though most certainly exaggerated.

 

[Dictator93]

It's funny to see GAF go all Gamergate on this.

Care to point out the similarities of reactions of specific members and the real actions of gamergaters?

 

[wildfire]

Really so you think a CIG employee had a phone conversation with this Lizzy, and then immediately went to Glass Door and posted word for word what they said on the phone.

Really?

I've written negative product reviews word for word after bitching to friends or family about the product not working.

When you're really made you go over and over in your mind what makes you mad and many of those words become set in stone.

*shrugs*

So what kind of email service sends replies to messages you've sent to your spam folder?

Uhmm Yahoo did that to me twice in the last month.

 

[wildfire]

Yeah, Escapist is still just digging a bigger and worse hole for themselves. Their vetting process doesn't seem anywhere near the minimum standard for vetting a source.

Come on now. They actually verified all of these people through LinkedIn and public data while conversing on them through Skype. The only ones they didn't verify like that were like 2 from email exchanges. They definitely did more than the minimum to prove who are these people. Would you like them to take steps further and get their federal employee ID number?

Anyway the important thing to take away is that the Escapist doesn't have hard proof. One person gave them video but even they thought it was too ambiguous to use. There is still the matter that company emails haven't been disclosed but both sides allude to them.

 

[LastOne2100]

It becomes more and more difficult to believe the more there have to be excuses made.

It's not just a case "this looks fishy because of A", it's "this looks fishy because simultaneously strange things A,B,C, and D all happened simultaneously". Is it impossible for that to all be true? Of course it is. But should you take the claims as facts? Absolutely not.

Vetting is not just verifying the source is who they say they are, but also, what they're telling you is true. If a handful ex-Google employees who know each other (as it seems most of these ~7 sources came from the same original "Mutual acquaintance") tell you that Google has a giant missile ready to blow up the sun, do you immediately run back to your CNN desk and report it?

 

[kcp12304]

Also, who the fuck goes to the Escapist to break a story. If there are that many disgruntled employees who are potentially working together, why not go to a bigger news outlet.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Folks getting way too tied up in the wrong things here. The he-said-she-said is a tempest in a teapot. What folks should be talking about is that The Escapist is standing by two very bold claims:

1) There's a climate of sexual and racial harassment at CiG.
2) Embezzlement and fraud have and are taking place at CiG.

Problem is, The Escapist has made public charges on extremely flimsy evidence. "An anonymous source told me that embezzlement took place right in front of them" is laughable corroboration.

You wanna do an article on hinky things going on at CiG? Go right ahead. Write an article with unverified claims of criminal activity? That's a hell of a Pandora's Box that The Escapist has just opened.

This.

I sure as hell hope their sources are rock-solid, because they're liable for slander if this isn't true.

 

[draetenth]

I wanted to chime in and say that I don't really know anything about The Escapist (beyond Jim Sterling working there at one time) or CiG (even though I backed Star Citizen) so these quotes:

Folks getting way too tied up in the wrong things here. The he-said-she-said is a tempest in a teapot. What folks should be talking about is that The Escapist is standing by two very bold claims:

1) There's a climate of sexual and racial harassment at CiG.
2) Embezzlement and fraud have and are taking place at CiG.

Problem is, The Escapist has made public charges on extremely flimsy evidence. "An anonymous source told me that embezzlement took place right in front of them" is laughable corroboration.

You wanna do an article on hinky things going on at CiG? Go right ahead. Write an article with unverified claims of criminal activity? That's a hell of a Pandora's Box that The Escapist has just opened.

This.

I sure as hell hope their sources are rock-solid, because they're liable for slander if this isn't true.

pretty much represent my view on the matter as an outsider looking in on the conflict between the two. Not saying that The Escapist is wrong or anything, but with the very serious accusations they've thrown at CiG, I'm expecting some very rock solid sources. I would also think that more publications would be picking up on the story too.

 

[Danthrax]

This.

I sure as hell hope their sources are rock-solid, because they're liable for slander if this isn't true.

They're liable for libel, actually. The mnemonic I use is:

Libel = letters (written)
Slander = spoken (verbally)

 

[tuxfool]

I would also think that more publications would be picking up on the story too.

The only other sites picking it up are repeating the escapist article and have their own axe to grind. More trustworthy sites are certainly not repeating this stuff, we already know jscheier's opinion on the article.

 

[Dictator93]

Also, who the fuck goes to the Escapist to break a story. If there are that many disgruntled employees who are potentially working together, why not go to a bigger news outlet.

The journalist who posted the story was actively going to people laid off by CIG on twitter. So I am not sure how much this naturally "came to the escapist" vs. how much was sought out (BY MEANS OF A MUTUAL FRIEND).

 

[T.Slothrop]

We can basically assume that The Escapist has nothing that even begins to represent an actual fact-checking apparatus. And even if it did, huge news organizations like rollingstone can still be taken for a ride. From where I stand, The Escapist is operating on a skeleton staff of no one who understands anything about actual journalism.

All that being said, you'd be blind to assume everything was fine and dandy at CiG. Regardless of whether these sources are real, developers with their shit in order dont give the appearance of leaking like a shot up ship.

 

[hobblygobbly]

I'm no lawyer but it seems like CIG would have a pretty good case against The Escapist. The Escapist made massive allegations, used anonymous sources but what makes that bad is that they don't provide any evidence, none of these anonymous sources can provide evidence, so for The Escapist to make such allegations puts them at the risk of libel. God it's fucking beautiful irony proven time and time again, The Escapist and Lizzy are GGers, what they did goes against "ethics in game journalism" as well, just goes to show time and time again how "ethics in game journalism" is a facade. They don't give a fuck about it and just use it to deflect criticism. GG would blow up the tiniest trivial thing that opposes them, but when something related to them breaches one of their "core principles", it's barely an issue in their circles. Facade. It's easy to see why The Escapist broke this, Derek Smart found his allies with the GG crowd.

 

[shootfast]

The only other sites picking it up are repeating the escapist article and have their own axe to grind. More trustworthy sites are certainly not repeating this stuff, we already know jscheier's opinion on the article.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...ew-inflammatory-star-citizen-allegations.aspx

Game Informer article is an example of what Escapist ought to have went with, that and letting Chris Roberts respond to allegations...

Anonymous sources also require hard evidence if they are making allegations of criminality.

 

[Korgill]

It becomes more and more difficult to believe the more there have to be excuses made.

It's not just a case "this looks fishy because of A", it's "this looks fishy because simultaneously strange things A,B,C, and D all happened simultaneously". Is it impossible for that to all be true? Of course it is. But should you take the claims as facts? Absolutely not.

Vetting is not just verifying the source is who they say they are, but also, what they're telling you is true. If a handful ex-Google employees who know each other (as it seems most of these ~7 sources came from the same original "Mutual acquaintance") tell you that Google has a giant missile ready to blow up the sun, do you immediately run back to your CNN desk and report it?

Yes, anyone would with multiple confirmed employees saying something like that. There is a place to report on allegations, even if the physical proof is flimsy, and multiple people corroborating the story does help the story's validity. It's not a court case where guilt needs to be established.

Also the Glassdoor posts shouldn't really matter to the Escapist story unless people think that the Escapist faked the story and then faked the Glassdoor posts.

 

[Briarios]

He said that they have more than $8m in reserve and $90m is not the all money they gathered.
They also stated multiple times, in many interviews, that even if funding stopped 'today' they would be able to finish the game.
What other proof do You need really?

A finished game.

Listen, I have no idea who is telling the truth here, but neither do you. Just acccepting Roberts at his word is just as bad as accepting the anonymous sources at theirs. There is zero reason to accept his word at face value because, in reality, he has no one to answer to. People gave him $90 million and he can do whatever he wants with it and doesn't have to disclose a thing.

Also, people from the company posting a defense ... Really? Now, someone that has moved on to a new job and posts a defense, thats something. But, defending the guy that signs your paycheck? Always suspect.

 

[Dictator93]

A finished game.

Listen, I have no idea who is telling the truth here, but neither do you. Just acccepting Roberts at his word is just as bad as accepting the anonymous sources at theirs.

Some people are assigned more creability than others, it is how we get about our daily lives believing some things over others.

In this case of he says she says, etc. with no hard evidence pointing towards the accusations and a confusing chain of information regarding the acquisition of sources and the compilation of the article... I think it is reasonable to find Chris Roberts a credible source.

 

[ScatheZombie]

I'm no lawyer but it seems like CIG would have a pretty good case against The Escapist. The Escapist made massive allegations, used anonymous sources but what makes that bad is that they don't provide any evidence, none of these anonymous sources can provide evidence, so for The Escapist to make such allegations puts them at the risk of libel.

The beauty of it all is that even IF CIG would take them to court (hint: they won't), they would have to publicly prove the claims made by The Escapist and their sources are incorrect. And the only two claims that are disprovable - are the racial profiling in hiring practices and the use of business accounts for private purchases. The rest is all stuff like "the work environment is toxic" and "X person is difficult to work with". Those aren't libel, because they are clearly opinions - in that case, they'd need to go after the sources themselves, not The Escapist.

But, to disprove racial profiling in hiring practices, they'd have to show that they have had diverse hiring over an extended period of time and show that minority candidates were passed over for legitimate reasons. Unless your hiring department is absolutely air-tight, you probably don't have this. And considering most development teams are an ocean of white guys, it likely wouldn't look very good in court if your argument is "we're not discriminating with our hiring, even though our team is ~90% white males".

Then, to disprove usage of company funds in private purchasing, they would have to divulge (at least part of) their financials. And, from my experience, every major manager and executive in the company is going to have a corporate card for things like business trips, crunch food, lunch meetings, etc. And they more-than-never use them for "business trips", "crunch food" and "lunch meetings" that are actually just them taking a personal lunch, or a personal trip, or getting food for themselves. At your typical studio, it would be nearly impossible to prove you've never used business funds 'inappropriately', because that shit happens all-the-goddamn-time. It's only when someone gets too excessive with it that the publisher sees the expense report and cracks down on outside expenditures. And CIG doesn't have an outside publisher to do this.

 

[wildfire]

I'm no lawyer but it seems like CIG would have a pretty good case against The Escapist.

Libel and slander laws are tricky in the United States. There has to be prove from CiG that Escapist was malicious or reckless. If Escapist is telling lies Robert's should consider it but the copany is burning a lot of cash so a lawsuit wouldn't be in their best interests.

Either way if Escapists is telling the truth about how they met their sources it will be very hard to prove they were being malicious. They might be able to prove for recklessness.

It becomes more and more difficult to believe the more there have to be excuses made.

It's not just a case "this looks fishy because of A", it's "this looks fishy because simultaneously strange things A,B,C, and D all happened simultaneously". Is it impossible for that to all be true? Of course it is. But should you take the claims as facts? Absolutely not.

Vetting is not just verifying the source is who they say they are, but also, what they're telling you is true. If a handful ex-Google employees who know each other (as it seems most of these ~7 sources came from the same original "Mutual acquaintance") tell you that Google has a giant missile ready to blow up the sun, do you immediately run back to your CNN desk and report it?

That's fair enough. I assumed you were talking about identities only and I agree that it is important to provide hard proof with these types of accusations. I didn't even know embezzlement was one of the insinuations because I didn't want to give Escapist clicks.

Let's keep in mind that the only reason this article exists because people all over the internet said Escapist is only relying on Derek smart or copy pasted Glassdoor posts. Their response is appropriate to those numerous claims.

After reading only Robeert's response there is some reason to believe some of the stuff is true to an extent. Robert defended his company in various ways and gave very precise details. Yet when he got around to addressing the allegations of foul language communication and racism he said that is a private matter and left it at that. To what extent they are true is unknown but it's obvious based on that deflection it is true.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Jesus, its kinda amazing how quickly Escapist descended into becoming a worthless pile of trash.

 

[Dictator93]

Libel and slander laws are tricky in the United States. There has to be prove from CiG that Escapist was malicious or reckless.

Their justification for publishing so quickly (why did it need to go out by noon?) and the handling of his response shows a high level of recklessness. Also publishing accusations of fraud and discrimnation without hard evidence seems pretty darn reckless.

 

[T.Slothrop]

Jesus, its kinda amazing how quickly Escapist descended into becoming a worthless pile of trash.

The CEO used to be just that, the guy running the business end while the EIC operated fairly independently. Those were the good years. But somewhere along the line that changed and he started exerting more influence. Now editorial strikes me as being a puppet regime.

 

[Imbarkus]

Listen, I have no idea who is telling the truth here, but neither do you. Just acccepting Roberts at his word is just as bad as accepting the anonymous sources at theirs.

Negative. The burden of proof is on the person making accusations, and by extension the publication profiting from them.

Roberts gets 10X Credibility by standing personally by his statements with his identity, even though he was not really given a choice.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

The CEO used to be just that, the guy running the business end while the EIC operated fairly independently. Those were the good years. But somewhere along the line that changed and he started exerting more influence. Now editorial strikes me as being a puppet regime.

That makes sense. Also gives a good explanation as to why they bled almost all their talent over the past year or so.

 

[AJLma]

This whole thing is so slimy. Escapist just got put in the same place a Gawker for me.

 

[The Technomancer]

That makes sense. Also gives a good explanation as to why they bled almost all their talent over the past year or so.

Letting Bob Chipman go was the first sign that the ship was burning to me. Not just because I liked his content but because he had like two video series and three columns. They fired the guy producing like a fifth of their content on his own without any warning. That means something is going on

 

[Tamanator]

It's quite interesting to see the reaction of this when compared to the Silicon Knights fallout when anonymous sources revealed a lot about what was going on behind the scenes. Dyack came out and gave his side of the story, using very similar rhetoric to Chris Roberts, but of course no one believed him.

Sure Roberts having much more credibility currently than Dyack, who used up all his on Too Human, but I think it is laughable to dismiss the Escapist article entirely as poor journalism simply due to the sources remaining anonymous to the general public. Sure, this could all be vicious rumours and stories concocted by detractors and fired employees, but perhaps it has a grain of truth. Either way, I do think the Escapist had the duty to report on what they've head, since they seemingly did verify their sources. That's generally how investigative journalism works.

 

[Jackpot]

Roberts gets 10X Credibility by standing personally by his statements with his identity, even though he was not really given a choice.

but there's no risk of blowback from Roberts using his own name...

It's a very, very basic tenet of journalism that hiding a source's identity is a good and downright necessary thing. Like to even argue against it is to expose a total lack of knowledge.